Dawson, Sharma, Irving, Marcus and Chirico, ETP forthcoming

Predictors ofLater-GenerationFamily Members’Commitment toFamily EnterprisesAlexandra DawsonPramodita SharmaP. Gregory IrvingJoel MarcusFrancesco Chirico

This study examines the antecedents of different bases of organizational commitment andintention to stay of later-generation family members who are currently working in their familyfirm. Evidence from 199 Canadian and Swiss firms indicates that when these individuals’identity and career interests are aligned with their family enterprise, they experience affec-tive commitment. Family expectations are associated with normative commitment. Indivi-duals who are concerned about losing inherited financial wealth or who perceive a lack ofalternative career paths stay with the family enterprise because of continuance commitment.Finally, individuals driven by desire or obligation exhibit low turnover intentions.

Introduction

Family involvement in business is an understandably prominent theme within familybusiness research. Family businesses1 are commonly differentiated from other organiza-tional forms based on the involvement of family in the vision, ownership, management, orgovernance of the firm (e.g., Chua, Chrisman, & Sharma, 1999). The critical role of familyinvolvement in business enterprises, both young and old, is highlighted in theoretical andempirical works (e.g., Aldrich & Cliff, 2003; Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2005). Scales tomeasure the extent and nature of family involvement in business have been developed andtested (e.g., Holt, Rutherford, & Kuratko, 2010; Klein, Astrachan, & Smyrnios, 2005).

Please send correspondence to: Alexandra Dawson, tel.: +1 514 848 2424; e-mail: [email protected], to Pramodita Sharma at [email protected], to P. Gregory Irving at [email protected], to Joel Marcusat [email protected], and to Francesco Chirico at [email protected]. In this paper, we refer to family enterprise, family business, and family firm interchangeably.

PTE &

1042-2587© 2013 Baylor University

1June, 2013DOI: 10.1111/etap.12052

However, to date, there has been little systematic research to address why family memberswho have joined the family enterprise remain with the firm as a career choice.

Research suggests that it is the “commitment” of family members toward theirbusiness that motivates them to be involved in it (Chirico, Ireland, & Sirmon, 2011).Family members’ commitment toward their business is said to be a key determinant offirm survival, success, flexibility, and even longevity (e.g., Miller & Le Breton-Miller,2006; Zahra, Hayton, Neubaum, Dibrell, & Craig, 2008). Family firms that are charac-terized by organizational commitment present higher levels of loyalty, interdependence,and reciprocal altruism, which are socially embedded resources that contribute to sup-porting long-term organizational goals and the firm’s success (Colbert, 2004; Eddleston,Kellermanns, & Sarathy, 2008). Strong organizational commitment, combined with aculture of stewardship, encourages strategic flexibility, which allows family firms toscrutinize and respond to environmental changes (Zahra et al.), which is particularlyimportant in dynamic environment conditions (Eddleston et al.). Family business leadersindicate the significant importance of commitment to business as one of the most desirableattributes in next-generation family members (e.g., Chrisman, Chua, & Sharma, 1998;Sharma & Rao, 2000). Some argue that high levels of commitment compensate forlimitations in ability and overall managerial competence of family members (Aldrich &Langton, 1997). But are there different bases of commitment or reasons that motivatesecond- or later-generation family members (henceforth later-gen members) to spend theircareer in this enterprise while others may join for a brief period without an intention tostay for the long term?

Based on the conceptual advances in the organizational commitment literature (Meyer& Allen, 1991; Morrow, 1983; Reichers, 1985), Sharma and Irving (2005) proposed aconceptual framework of commitment that compels later-gen members to be involved intheir family enterprises. They distinguished the following bases of commitment: affective(desire based), normative (obligation based), and continuance (cost avoidance based).Their theoretical framework suggests that the different forms of commitment will directlyimpact the focal behavior of later-gen members. Further, Sharma and Irving proposed thateach commitment type would be rooted in a distinct set of antecedent variables. Usingdata from 199 family firms in Canada and Switzerland, this article provides an empiricaltest of this conceptual framework (Sharma & Irving). The focal behavior we are interestedin is later-gen members’ intention to stay and continue their career in the family enter-prise, as the short-term entry and exit of a family member may have negative repercus-sions both in the family and the business systems.

This article makes several contributions. First, it furthers our understanding of thedifferent reasons why family members choose to maintain a career with their familybusiness. By understanding the different motivators or bases of commitment and thepredictors of each, we contribute to knowledge on family enterprises. Second, althoughscholars in the commitment literature have suggested the need to contextualize researchand understand the predictors of different bases of commitment (Meyer & Herscovitch,2001; Reichers, 1985), this work remains pending. Our study begins to address theseissues by testing antecedents of different forms of commitment in the context of familyenterprises. Third, scholars including Kacmar and Whitfield (2000) and Hambrick (2007)lament that less than 10% of ideas published in leading management journals are evertested and point to “the importance of theory testing, as such testing can temper enthu-siasm for appealing but invalid models” (Colquitt & Zapata-Phelan, 2007, p. 1282). Thisstudy begins to address such scholarly calls by empirically testing a conceptual frame-work that was proposed in 2005 but has not been tested to date. Finally, this researchcontributes to the broader commitment literature by examining a three-component model

2 ENTREPRENEURSHIP THEORY and PRACTICE

of commitment in a context in which normative commitment (NC) may play a larger rolethan in other contexts. Family businesses represent a unique form of organization thatinvolves strong familial ties. Whereas NC is sometimes either ignored or downplayed incommitment research (e.g., McGee & Ford, 1987), feelings of obligation may be particu-larly relevant in explaining commitment in family businesses.

This paper proceeds as follows. In the next section, we draw on the organizationalcommitment literature to present a brief review of the different bases of commitment withspecific reference to family members’ decision to continue their career within their familyfirm. Then, we build on the framework proposed by Sharma and Irving (2005) and presentthe hypotheses tested in this study with regard to the antecedents and a focal outcome ofcommitment. This is followed by a description of the empirical study including our datacollection and measures. Results are shared next. The article concludes with a discussionof findings, including limitations and implications of the study.

Bases of Commitment

According to Meyer and Herscovitch (2001), commitment is a force that emerges asa frame of mind or psychological state compelling an individual toward a course of actionthat is relevant to one or more targets. Within this definition, the targets—or foci—of commitment are the objects or entities to which one is committed, whereas themindsets—or bases—refer to the underlying motives that produce commitment. In thisstudy, family businesses constitute the targets of interest, and we seek to understand thevarious mindsets associated with later-gen members’ continued involvement in thesefirms. Family members may work for their family enterprise for a number of reasons.They may identify with the business, feel the pressure of family expectations and the needto support familial goals and values, or perceive that few career alternatives are availableto them outside the family firm. Meyer and Allen (1991) distinguished among three basesof commitment—affective (AC), NC, and continuance commitment (CC)—rooted in themindsets of desire, obligation, and cost avoidance, respectively. Family members with ACtoward the family business—based on a mindset of desire—believe strongly in thepurpose and goals of the business and demonstrate enthusiasm in contributing positivelyto organizational outcomes. Family members with NC—based on a mindset ofobligation—perceive the need to comply with external social norms and expectations.They may not perceive such an obligation negatively because it is possible to derive greatsatisfaction from meeting the expectations of, and maintaining positive social relationswith, important people in their lives such as close family members. Family members whobelieve that the costs of leaving the family business are too high—based on a mindset ofcost avoidance—experience CC (Meyer & Allen). Sharma and Irving (2005) theorizedtwo underlying factors to CC, following empirical work that has evidenced this possibility(McGee & Ford, 1987; Meyer, Allen, & Gellatly, 1990). They considered a mindset of“having to” remain within the family firm because the costs of leaving are prohibitive(calculative commitment), as well as a mindset of “needing to” maintain a career in thefamily firm because of a perceived lack of alternative employment opportunities (impera-tive commitment). While conceptually appealing, empirical evidence from organizationalcommitment literature on whether there are one or two dimensions of CC is mixed(McGee & Ford; Meyer et al.). As this is a first attempt to test empirically the antecedentsof commitment in family enterprises, we rely on the more established scales in theprevalent commitment literature (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993;Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). The three bases of commitment

3June, 2013

described earlier are all expected to be associated with later-gen members maintainingtheir involvement in the family enterprise, which is the focal behavior of interest in thisstudy. However, as elaborated in the next section, the substantively different mindsets ofdesire, obligation, and cost avoidance are likely to stem from different antecedents (seeFigure 1).

Antecedents of Commitment

Antecedents of Affective CommitmentAC is expected to occur when individuals identify with the organization and/or when

they experience an alignment between their career aspirations and job opportunitieswithin the business (Sharma & Irving, 2005).

Identity Alignment. According to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1985), indi-viduals maintain multiple identities (e.g., brother, manager, and church member) andclassify themselves and others into social categories. When strong identification occurswith an organization, individuals take the organization’s goals as their own, and may evenfeel that they personify the organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Because familyenterprises by definition are characterized by deep involvement of family, it is oftennatural for family members to identify with the business (Sharma, Chrisman, & Gersick,2012). When work and family activities are greatly intertwined as they are in familyenterprises, individuals often derive their place in the world and sense of self and identity

Figure 1

Predictors of Later-Gen Members’ Commitment

PREDICTORS

Identity alignment

Career interest alignment

Family expectations

Family orientation

Financial costs

Social costs

Limited exposure to alternate career paths

Perceived lack of marketable skills

COMMITMENT TYPES

AFFECTIVE COMMITMENTDesire based

NORMATIVE COMMITMENTObligation based

CONTINUANCE COMMITMENTCost avoidance based

Hypothesis1

Hypothesis2

Hypothesis3

Hypothesis4

Hypothesis5

Hypothesis8

Hypothesis9

INTENTION TO STAY

Hypothesis6

Hypothesis7


from this enterprise (James, Jennings, & Breitkreuz, 2012). In many instances, senior-generation family members devote significant efforts to instill later-gen members with thesense of pride, accomplishment, and satisfaction they feel toward the family enterprise(Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2006). This, in turn, encourages younger members to identifywith the firm, to be proud of their legacy, and to experience a desire to stay in their familyenterprise. It follows that:

Hypothesis 1: The greater the identification with the family enterprise, the higher willbe the AC experienced by later-gen members currently working in the family business.

Career Interest Alignment. Within an organizational context, individuals can be simul-taneously committed to various focal entities such as their profession, their job, or theorganization itself (Morrow, 1983; Reichers, 1985). Thus, later-gen members, regardlessof their feelings toward the family or the business as a whole, may or may not have careerinterests that align with the opportunities available within their family firm. However,when the career interests of family members are sufficiently aligned with the workperformed by their family firm, they are more likely to demonstrate great energy andwillingness to contribute positively to the organization’s goals (Salvato, Minichilli, &Piccarreta, 2012). It follows that:

Hypothesis 2: The greater the alignment of career interests with the opportunities inthe family enterprise, the higher will be the AC experienced by later-gen memberscurrently working in the family business.

Antecedents of Normative CommitmentNC develops from the internalization of norms through socialization (Meyer et al.,

1990). As such, Sharma and Irving (2005) identified family expectations and familyorientation as two potential antecedents of NC.

Family Expectations. The effect of family norms on individuals’ attitudes, values, andbehaviors has been extensively studied both in the organizational behavior and familybusiness literatures (Asakawa, 2001; Barling, Kelloway, & Bremerman, 1991). Forinstance, norms of equality may stipulate that all later-gen members should participateequally in the business, whereas norms of liberty and independence may encouragelater-gen members to strike their own paths and not participate at all in the familyenterprise (Sharma & Manikutty, 2005). Because familial norms strongly influence thesocialization of family members, later-gen members subjected to strong family expecta-tions will likely feel obligated to continue their career within their family enterprise.It follows that:

Hypothesis 3: The greater the perceived family expectations regarding participation inthe family enterprise, the higher will be the NC experienced by later-gen memberscurrently working in the family business.

Family Orientation. The concept of family orientation reflects the value that an indi-vidual places on family and the extent to which values of tradition and loyalty are shared(Lumpkin, Martin, & Vaughn, 2008). Through socialization, individuals internalize thesociocultural patterns of their family (Chirico, Sirmon, Sciascia, & Mazzola, 2011;Vallejo & Langa, 2010). Family pressure and norms have greater influence on individuals

5June, 2013

with high family orientation as these individuals are likely to be heavily involved in familylife, making it harder to go against time-honored customs and established roles (Sharma& Irving, 2005). It follows that:

Hypothesis 4: The greater their family orientation, the higher will be the NC experi-enced by later-gen members currently working in the family business.

Antecedents of Continuance CommitmentCC occurs when individuals believe that there are no available alternatives, and the

fear of losing valued investments or specific rewards compels them toward a course ofaction of relevance to the target (Meyer & Allen, 1991). In the realm of family enterprise,the costs associated with leaving the family firm can be either financial or social in nature.Later-gen members may also exhibit CC when they have limited exposure to other careerpaths or perceive a lack of marketable skills (Sharma & Irving, 2005).

Financial Costs. Financial returns are highly salient within business environments andmay weigh heavily on later-gen members’ decision to remain in their family enterprise.Later-gen members may be granted substantial financial stakes in their family’s enterprise(Schulze, Lubatkin, Dino, & Buchholtz, 2001). The endowment effect, observed in behav-ioral economics research, demonstrates that people often value more highly what theyalready possess rather than the opportunity to acquire something else (Issacharoff, 1998;Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1990). It follows that:

Hypothesis 5: The greater the perceived financial costs associated with nonparticipa-tion in the family enterprise, the higher will be the CC experienced by later-genmembers currently working in the family business.

Social Costs. The influence of the family system in the business environment implies thatfamily members may have access to significant nonpecuniary benefits through their familyenterprise (Sirmon & Hitt, 2003). These benefits include belonging to social networksand enjoying long-term relationships with key stakeholders such as clients or suppliers,which can afford considerable reputational advantages (Carney, 2005; Miller & LeBreton-Miller, 2006). The social status and identity of a family member is closely linkedto the family enterprise, especially if the individual bears the same name as the firm (Dyer& Whetten, 2006). Later-gen members who choose not to stay in their family enterpriseforgo the opportunity to reap the benefits that may be associated with the cross-generational transfer of this social capital (Arregle, Hitt, Sirmon, & Very, 2007; Stewart,2003). They also give up the power to exercise authority in the enterprise and may foregosatisfaction of their needs for affection and belonging along with other forms of socioe-motional wealth that may reside within the family business environment (Gomez-Mejia,Cruz, Berrone, & De Castro, 2011). It follows that:

Hypothesis 6: The greater the perceived social costs associated with nonparticipationin the family enterprise, the higher will be the CC experienced by later-gen memberscurrently working in the family business.

Limited Exposure to Alternate Career Paths. It is natural for children of family businessoperators to participate in the family enterprise throughout their childhood and adoles-cence (Lambrecht, 2005). In this context, individuals are exposed to their parents’ careers


within the family business, which may come to define their zone of comfort (Sharma &Irving, 2005). For many later-gen members, a career within the family business may offerthe “path of least resistance.” In contrast, career alternatives outside the known confinesof the family enterprise may be associated with considerable uncertainty and risk. Itfollows that:

Hypothesis 7: The more limited the exposure to career opportunities outside ofthe family enterprise, the higher will be the CC experienced by later-gen memberscurrently working in the family business.

Perceived Lack of Marketable Skills. Children who grow up participating in their familyenterprise are likely to develop tacit knowledge and firm-specific skill sets that may noteasily transfer to other institutions or contexts (Lane & Lubatkin, 1998; Sirmon & Hitt,2003). Over time, and in the absence of external experience, later-gen members may cometo believe that their skills are not relevant outside of their family enterprise. Whether or notthis perception is accurate, the belief that skills are nontransferable may have considerablebearing on the decision to continue working for the family enterprise (Habbershon &Astrachan, 1997). It follows that:

Hypothesis 8: The greater the perceived lack of marketable skills, the higher will bethe CC experienced by later-gen members currently working in the family business.

Behavioral Consequence of Commitment

Committed individuals tend to have lower intent to leave their job and voluntaryturnover, regardless of the mindset driving their commitment (Meyer et al., 2002). Suchcommitment may develop prior to entry (O’Reilly & Caldwell, 1981) and is often evidentduring early stages of employment (Porter, Crampon, & Smith, 1976). Even individualswith CC are expected to want to keep their job to avoid incurring costs associated withleaving (Meyer et al.). The theory presented here is premised on the notion that each of thethree bases of commitment will lead later-gen members to engage in the same focalbehavior—the decision to continue working in their family enterprise (Sharma & Irving,2005). It follows that:

Hypothesis 9: AC, NC, and CC of later-gen members currently working in the familybusiness will all be positively related to intention to stay in the family enterprise.

Methods

Sample and Data CollectionThe nine hypotheses were tested through a three-step process. First, we conducted a

pretest of our questionnaire among 60 members of a local family business center inCanada in order to ensure that respondents would be able to understand and complete thesurvey. Second, we surveyed a sample of later-gen members currently working in Cana-dian family firms, drawing on the membership of the Canadian Association of FamilyEnterprise (CAFE). The distribution of survey packages was facilitated by CAFE, whichidentified 275 of their member organizations as meeting the study requirements; that is,

7June, 2013

enterprises in which the firm’s leadership had been transitioned to a family member ofsecond or later generation. A package with a cover letter detailing the purpose of the study,the questionnaire, instructions, and an assurance of confidentiality was sent by CAFE toall qualifying firms. Instructions indicated that the questionnaire was to be filled out bythe “most senior later-generation family member (of second or higher generation).” Thesurvey included indicators for the antecedent variables and commitment bases as wellas demographic variables. Family business leaders were responsible for ensuring thatsurveys were filled out by the appropriate respondents. Survey packages also included aself-addressed and postage-paid envelope, deliverable to one member of the researchteam. Additionally, all surveys were coded to facilitate anonymity in multiple mailings.For the Canadian sample, three mailings produced responses from 89 family businessesrepresenting a total response rate of 32.3%. Of those who responded, 11 declined toparticipate in the study. The final sample consisted of 78 family businesses.

Given the limited number of respondents, the third step was to extend the study to anothercountry. We selected Switzerland, which has been shown to have a comparable societalculture to Canada as indicated by the Global Leadership and Organizational Behavior Effec-tiveness (GLOBE) study (Gupta & Hanges, 2004). According to this work, a comprehen-sive update that extends Hofstede’s (1980) well-known culture classifications, Canada andSwitzerland belong to the subcategories of “Anglo” and “Latin Europe,” respectively. TheGLOBE clustering results show that Latin Europe is the next best alternative cluster classi-fication for Anglo, and vice versa. Furthermore, Anglo and Latin Europe are adjacent toeach other in the GLOBE metaconfiguration of societal cultures. We identified 373 familyfirms registered in the Chamber of Commerce in Canton Ticino, located in Switzerland’sItalian-speaking region, as meeting the study requirements. The questionnaire was translatedfrom English into Italian using a translation and back-translation procedure by two universityscholars fluent in both languages. The questionnaire package was sent to the Swiss familyfirms following the same procedure used for data collection in Canada. Three mailingsproduced 121 usable responses, representing a total response rate of 32.4%.

The Canadian and Swiss data sets were compared with regard to multiple variables(e.g., respondents’ age, generation, position, and years with the firm). No statisticallysignificant differences were found on these demographic variables. However, we foundsignificant differences with regard to some of the independent variables of our model suchas “limited exposure to alternate career paths” and “perceived lack of marketable skills.”Therefore, we retained a control variable for sample through all subsequent analyses.

We also compared the means of respondents and nonrespondents with respect to sizeand age, and used a t-test and chi-square test to establish whether the group of respondentswas representative of the initial population. No significant differences were found. Inorder to mitigate the issue of common methods bias, Harman’s one-factor test wasperformed on items included in our regression models. The results of the unrotated factoranalysis showed that no single factor was dominant (the first factor explained 15.2% of thevariance, and the remaining factors accounted for 57.1%), suggesting that common-method bias was not a threat in our data (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). We also followedPodsakoff, MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon, and Podsakoff’s (2003) suggestions and analyzedour data with the unmeasured latent factor method approach. We allowed all self-reporteditems to load both on their theoretical constructs and on an uncorrelated method factor,and compared the results of this model with our full factor measurement model withoutthe latent method factor. The addition of the latent factor did not significantly improve thefit of the measurement model. Also, all factor loadings of the measurement modelremained significant. These results further suggest that common-method bias is not likelyto have influenced our study’s results.


MeasuresThis study used a combination of established scales from previous studies and new

scales for constructs that did not have existing measures. All variables were measured ona 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The questionnaire is providedin the Appendix.

Existing Scales. Where possible, we employed well-established measures for our con-structs. First, measures of the three bases of commitment were adapted from Allen andMeyer (1990) and Meyer et al. (1993) to reflect the family business context. Specifically,the term “organization” in the original scale was replaced with “family business.” Second,organizational identity is distinctive to organizations because it portrays the collectivebehavior and culture of the organization. Scholars argue that it is embedded in theorganization’s history and values (e.g., Zellweger, Eddleston, & Kellermanns, 2010),which shape the organization’s culture (Klein et al., 2005). Accordingly, identity align-ment was measured through five items taken from the study of Astrachan, Klein, andSmyrnios (2002) on the family firm’s culture dimension and three items from Maeland Ashforth’s (1995) organizational identification scale. As indicated in the Appendix,we also developed three new items to ensure sufficient sampling of the theoretical domain(for the procedure followed to create new items, see below). Third, a 6-item scaledeveloped by Misra, Ghosh, and Kanungo (1990)2 was used to measure family orienta-tion, i.e., the value later-gen members placed on family and family life. Finally, a 4-itemscale based on Colarelli’s (1984) measure of turnover intention was used to measurelater-gen members’ intention to remain with their family enterprise. Again, items wereadapted to identify the family business as the focal unit. To eliminate problems associatedwith reverse scoring, all items were framed to have a common valence.

New Scales. Where existing scales were unavailable, we followed established proceduresto develop new measures for our theoretical constructs (e.g., Jansen, van den Bosch, &Volberda, 2005; Pearson & Lumpkin, 2011). Similarly to Jansen et al., we reviewedexisting literature and put together a list of items reflecting the theoretical definition andmeaning of each construct. Furthermore, as described earlier, we pretested the question-naire, including the new scales, on a sample of 60 Canadian family firms. This resulted inminor adjustments in the wording of our new scales. First, individuals may experiencecommitment toward different entities, such as their career, job, and organization (Morrow,1983; Reichers, 1985; Sharma & Irving, 2005). Also, there may be potential conflictsamong different commitment targets (Wiener & Vardi, 1980). We developed a 6-itemscale to gauge the positioning of an individual’s career relative to the career that isavailable within the family business (career interest alignment). Second, families gener-ally have norms and expectations regarding the attitudes and behaviors that are consideredacceptable or desirable (Asakawa, 2001; Barling et al., 1991). Families with familybusinesses will have norms and expectations about the role that family members areexpected to play in the business, including pursuing a career or taking a leadership role(Sharma & Irving). Accordingly, a 5-item scale was developed for this survey to assess thefamily expectations concerning later-gen members’ role within the family business. Third,a family business provides family members with income and financial security, especiallywhen family members are paid more than their market value (Burkart, Panunzi, &

2. Although Misra et al. (1990) referred to “family involvement,” we use Lumpkin et al.’s (2008) more recentterminology of “family orientation.”

9June, 2013

Shleifer, 2003). Furthermore, there may be an endowment effect, leading individuals tovalue what they already possess due to the sunk costs incurred over time (Issacharoff,1998; Kahneman et al., 1990). In order to assess the personal financial costs that areassociated with giving up work in the family business, compared with working forsomeone else or even selling the family business, a 5-item scale was created for this study.Fourth, family business owners tend to be socially embedded in their local community(Perricone, Earle, & Taplin, 2001), and family firms enjoy relationships deriving from arespected family name (Donnelley, 1988). To account for the community-level benefitsthat family members enjoy from working in the family business (Sharma & Irving;Sharma & Manikutty, 2005), we created a 4-item scale addressing the social costsassociated with leaving the family firm. Fifth, individuals’ occupational choices arestrongly influenced by parents’ employment (Barling, 1990). In family firms, individualsoften feel that their career is dependent on the family firm because of the rewards,privileges, or pressures they receive and sometimes believe that alternative careers are notavailable (Sharma & Irving). This is amplified by the fact that later-gen members typicallyhave limited experience outside of the family firm (Harris, Martinez, & Ward, 1994). Fouritems assessing the extent to which later-gen members were exposed to career pathsoutside of the family business were created for this study. Finally, leaving a business foralternative employment may be associated with exit costs because of firm-specific invest-ments and sunk costs deriving from personal commitment to the firm (Meyer et al., 1993).Because skills are developed through learning by doing and apprenticeships that areprovided by family members (Le Breton-Miller & Miller, 2006), later-gen individualsdevelop tacit and highly specific knowledge, which they may feel is not easily transferable(Dawson, 2012; Sirmon & Hitt, 2003). A 4-item scale assessing the extent to whichlater-gen members perceived that their skill set was generalizable to other potentialemployers was created for this study (perceived lack of marketable skills).

Control Variables. We controlled for nine variables that may influence the relationbetween our dependent and independent variables. Although there is no definitive evi-dence of gender differences with regard to organizational commitment (Mathieu & Zajac,1990), there are studies that point toward women being more committed than men andvice versa (Scandura & Lankau, 1997). Therefore, we controlled for respondent gender(0 for male and 1 for female). Age has been found to be positively correlated to organi-zational commitment and intention to stay because of expectations about future jobprospects and importance of work by stage of life (Finegold, Mohrman, & Spreitzer,2002). We controlled for age using six discrete categories (30 or less, 31–40, 41–50,51–60, 61–70, and over 70 years old). In order to control for later-generation attributes,family dynamics, and embeddedness in the firm (Chrisman et al., 1998), we controlledfor type of relation of later-gen member with the founder (0 for blood relative and 1 forin-law), as well as position (ranging between 1 for chair of the board to 9 for nonman-agement) and number of years in the firm.

Older nonfamily firms present greater turnover because these organizations tend tobe more bureaucratized and are better positioned to endure turnover (Wagner, Pfeffer,& O’Reilly, 1984). Similar empirical determination is pending for family enterprises.Nevertheless, in this study, we controlled for age of the firm using five discreet categories(20 or less, 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, over 80 years old). We controlled for the proportion offamily wealth invested in the family business using four discrete categories (<25%,25–49%, 50–74%, and 75–100%) because having greater investments may affect familymembers’ motivation and commitment (Chen & Hsu, 2009). In the context of nonfamilyfirms, firm size has been shown to have a negative effect on organizational commitment


because as organizations become larger, it is more difficult to be visible and feel engaged(Sommer, Bae, & Luthans, 1996). However, in family firms, the opposite may be true forfamily members as their visibility, power, and attraction to the firm may increase whenthe family enterprise is of a substantial size. While investigating the role of firm size on thecommitment of family members is beyond the scope of this study, we controlled for firmrevenue using eight discrete categories ($100,000 or less, over $100,000–250,000, over$250,000–500,000, over $500,000 to $1 million, over $1–5 million, over $5–10 million,over $10–50 million, and over $50 million). Finally, because we collected data in twocountries, we controlled for sample (0 for Canadian and 1 for Swiss respondents).

Results

Statistical AnalysesFirst, items associated with the various predictor variables were factor analyzed using

varimax rotation and, as expected, a number of distinct factors emerged. However, itemsloaded on seven rather than eight factors with items tapping “limited exposure to alternatecareer paths” and “perceived lack of marketable skills” loading on the same factor. UsingAMOS, we verified the measurement model with a confirmatory factor analysis of allmulti-item variables. Overall, good fit was indicated by a normed c2 of 1.136 and root meansquare error of approximation of .035, and permissible fit was given by a comparative fitindex of .89 (e.g., Byrne, 2010; Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). As suggested byHulland (1999), we dropped four items with extremely low loadings (lower than .4) as theyadded little explanatory power to the model and bias parameter estimates (Byrne). Addi-tionally, to determine whether “limited exposure to alternate career paths” and “perceivedlack of marketable skills” should be represented as a single construct (as suggested by thefactor analysis) or as two separate constructs as theorized by Sharma and Irving (2005),we compared the fit of a one-factor solution with a two-factor solution (e.g., Byrne). Sincethe two-factor solution provided a better fit, it was chosen for hypothesis testing.

Second, convergent validity was examined by computing the indexes of averagevariance extracted, which is the proportion of variance in the variable that is not due tomeasurement error. An average variance extracted of at least .50 (50%) provides supportfor convergent validity (Hair et al., 2010). All variables in our model exceeded the cutoffpoint. Third, we evaluated discriminant validity by comparing the squared correlationbetween two variables with their respective average variance extracted. Discriminantvalidity is demonstrated if the average variance extracted of both variables exceeds thesquared correlation (e.g., Hair et al.). This condition was met for all the variables. Finally,in order to ensure that the data were appropriate for our analyses, we examined the varianceinflation factors (VIFs), which showed that multicollinearity was not a concern. All VIFcoefficients were lower than 5 (e.g., Hamilton, 2006). We also tested for heteroscedasticityby screening the data with the help of the White test (Cameron and Trivedi’s decompositionof the IM-test), which establishes whether the residual variance of a variable in a regressionmodel is constant. The White test (dependent variable [DV] AC: c2 = 67.37, p = .30; DVNC: c2 = 69.31, p = .24; DV CC: c2 = 104.74, p = .11; DV intention to stay: c2 = 89.19,p = .12) indicated that heteroscedasticity was not a concern (e.g., Hamilton).

Hypothesis TestingRegression analysis was utilized for hypothesis testing. Table 1 presents descriptive

statistics and zero-order correlations for all variables, as well as Cronbach’s alphas andaverage variance extracted.

11June, 2013

Table 2 presents regression results for the nine hypotheses. Five hypotheses receivedstrong support (hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7), and four were partially supported (hypoth-eses 4, 6, 8, and 9). The significant relationship between identity alignment and AC(b = .39; p < .01) supported hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 was also supported, with careerinterest alignment being significantly related to AC (b = .18; p < .05). Hypotheses 3 and 4concerned the proposed antecedents of later-gen members’ NC. Both family expectationsand family orientation were significantly correlated with NC (r = .43; p < .01 and r = .22;p < .01, respectively). However, when NC was regressed on both variables, only familyexpectations emerged as a significant predictor (b = .42; p < .001), perhaps owing to thevariance shared by family expectations and family orientation (r = .38; p < .01). Thus,hypothesis 3 was fully supported, but hypothesis 4 received only partial support. Withregard to hypotheses 5–8, financial costs (r = .41; p < .01), social costs (r = .20; p < .01),limited exposure to alternate career paths (r = .49; p < .01), and perceived lack of mar-ketable skills (r = .44; p < .01) were all significantly correlated with CC. However, whenCC was regressed on these four variables, financial costs (b = .18; p < .001) and limitedexposure to alternate career paths (b = .28; p < .001) were the only significant predictors.These results fully support hypotheses 5 and 7 but only partially support hypotheses 6 and8. The last column in Table 2 reports results for hypothesis 9. Two out of the three bases

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. AC 4.37 .65 (.59; .58)2. NC 3.69 .71 .22** (.72; .56)3. CC 3.04 .67 -.01 .42** (.73; .57)4. Identity alignment 4.20 .51 .40** .49** .15* (.83; .58)5. Career interest alignment 3.57 .74 .36** .41** .24** .46** (.75; .63)6. Family expectations 3.56 .72 .10 .43** .27** .34** .40** (.77; .62)7. Family orientation 3.81 .68 .20** .22** .27** .25** .36** .38** (.86; .71)8. Financial costs 3.15 .94 .02 .26** .41** .32** .14* .17* .069. Social costs 3.35 .71 .17* .35** .20** .44** .29** .38** .27**

10. Limited exposure toalternate career paths

2.70 .86 -.02 .23** .49** .13 .20** .30** .18*

11. Perceived lack ofmarketable skills

2.12 .70 -.24** .14 .44** -.15* .03 .08 .01

12. Intention to stay 4.00 .85 .34** .23** .00 .39** .24** .11 .1013. Sample .60 .49 -.02 .14 .16* -.27** .19** .07 .16*14. Gender .21 .41 -.01 .08 -.03 -.04 -.16* -.03 -.1215. Age 3.11 1.04 .03 .10 .10 .24** .20** -.01 .0816. Blood vs. law .14 .34 -.02 .01 .03 -.09 .01 -.09 .0717. Position 3.55 2.20 -.22** -.10 -.05 -.23** -.29** -.20** -.1318. Years in firm 19.96 11.90 .06 .17* .14* .32** .25** .12 .0619. Age of firm 2.85 1.44 .03 .07 .10 .22** .02 .03 -.0620. Proportion of wealth

in firm2.69 1.08 .01 .00 -.01 .16* -.07 .13 -.02

21. Firm revenues 4.73 2.16 .04 -.06 -.07 .20** -1.1 .03 -.16*

* p < .05, ** p < .01Note: n = 199. Cronbach’s alpha and average variance extracted are respectively listed in parentheses along the diagonal.AC, affective commitment; NC, normative commitment; CC, continuance commitment; SD, standard deviation.


of commitment, AC (b = .34; p < .001) and NC (b = .31; p < .01), emerged as significantpositive predictors of later-gen members’ intention to stay. Thus, hypothesis 9 was onlypartially supported.

We ran two robustness checks for our results. First, we regressed each commitmentbasis, as well as intention to stay, on all predictors. All results were confirmed, althoughthere were some interesting additional findings: perceived lack of marketable skills had asignificant and negative effect on AC (b = -.23; p < .01); identity alignment had a signifi-cant and positive effect on NC (b = .57; p < .001); and NC had a significant and positiveeffect on CC (b = .28; p < .01) and vice versa (b = .23; p < .01). Second, we ran ourregression analyses simultaneously in structural equation modeling inAMOS.As expected,given the small sample size relative to the number of parameters being estimated, therewere issues with model fit (Byrne, 2010; Hu & Bentler, 1995; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004).However, none of the regression results of our hypothesized relationships differed substan-tively from those obtained through ordinary least squares regression analysis.

Discussion

Scholars have argued for the importance of continuity and long tenure of leaders infamily enterprises, suggesting that these factors lead to these firms’ competitive advantage

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

(.81; .78).18** (.71; .62).26** .19** (.76; .66)

.25** .06 .57** (.66; .59)

.16* .06 -.15* -.23** (.73; .64)-.21** .02 .22** .33** -.29**

.16* -.11 -.15* -.13 -.02 -.19**

.15* .19** .14 .10 .06 .03 -.19**-.00 -.02 -.13 -.05 -.02 .10 -.06 .12-.00 -.21** -.09 .03 -.17* .03 .18* -.22** .06

.20** .24** .40** .20** .01 -.03 -.24** .69** -.05 -.23**

.21** .27** .11 .04 .07 -.30** .08 .28** -.04 -.11 .46**

.05 .05 .10 -.02 .11 -.31** -.05 -.01 .03 -.03 .08 .14

.25** .10 -.06 -.16* .16* -.46** .02 .13 .01 .02 .17* .26** .21**

13June, 2013

and longevity (Miller & Le Breton-Miller, 2005). But do all family members who havejoined family firms intend to stay? And, if there is variance in intention to stay, whatare the factors that are associated with that variance? In this study, we investigated theantecedents of later-gen member commitment currently working in family businesses aswell as the relations of different bases of organizational commitment with intention to stayin the business (Sharma & Irving, 2005). Five antecedent variables that related signifi-cantly and positively with the expected bases of commitment are identity alignment,career interest alignment, family expectations, financial costs, and limited exposure toalternate career paths. These findings are consistent with the three-component modelof commitment described in previous research (Meyer & Allen, 1991, 1997) as well as therelations hypothesized by Sharma and Irving.

In addition to examining antecedent variables, we also examined relationships of thebases of commitment with the focal behavior of intention to stay with the family business.As expected, AC and NC were positively associated with intention to stay. However,contrary to our hypothesis, CC was not significantly associated. This is consistent with

Table 2

Regression of Affective, Normative, and Continuance Commitment, and Intentionto Stay on Respective Predictor Variables

Predictor variables

Criterion variables

Affectivecommitment

Normativecommitment

Continuancecommitment

Intentionto stay

Identity alignment .39**Career interest alignment .18*Family expectations .42***Family orientation .03Financial costs .18***Social costs .07Limited exposure to alternate career paths .28***Perceived lack of marketable skills .14Affective commitment .34***Normative commitment .31**Continuance commitment -.17Control variablesSample -.00 .18 .04 -.56***Gender .04 .29* .04 -.20Age -.03 .01 .02 .11Blood vs. law .07 .16 .17 .00Position -.04 .01 -.01 -.03Years in the firm -.01 .01 -.01 -.01Age of firm .00 -.02 .03 -.02Proportion of wealth in firm -.02 -.03 -.06 .03Firm revenue .00 -.01 -.01 .01Overall model F 3.74*** 5.46*** 6.92*** 4.99***Adjusted R2 .15 .22 .31 .22Standard error .61 .64 .52 .75Degrees of freedom 173 173 173 170

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001


previous meta-analytic research (Meyer et al., 2002), which has found that AC has thestrongest relationship with the focal behavior, followed by NC. CC consistently hasthe weakest relations of the three bases with focal behaviors.

Affective CommitmentLater-gen members who derive their sense of self and identity from the business they

are currently working in, and are provided with opportunities aligned with their careerinterests, are more likely to have an affective attachment to the organization. Thesefindings are consistent with the general model of commitment proposed by Meyer andHerscovitch (2001). It is also noteworthy that, in the organizational commitment litera-ture, AC and identification are very much linked conceptually (Riketta & Van Dick, 2009).Within a family business context, individuals who identify strongly with the family firmalmost come to view the firm as an extension of themselves and their family name (Dyer& Whetten, 2006). As a result, they may develop a strong desire to maintain the firmand preserve it for future generations. Organizational identity theory, with its focus onthe long-lasting and idiosyncratic basic elements of an organization—“who are we as anorganization?” (Albert & Whetten, 1985)—can help explain how family ownership andcontrol can anchor the identity of a hybrid organization, such as a family firm, to thefamily’s set of values. Perceived lack of marketable skills was also a significant andnegative predictor of AC, suggesting that later-gen members who feel that their job skillsare not valuable outside the family firm may end up resenting the organization, thusreducing their emotional attachment and identification with it.

Normative CommitmentParents who strongly encourage or pressure their children to take over the family

business are likely to create a mindset of obligation in later-gen members. Thatfamily expectations play such a role should not be surprising given the importance thatfamilial relationships and parental influences have in the development of organizationalattitudes (e.g., Barling et al., 1991). The mindset of obligation is not necessarily negativebecause individuals often derive satisfaction from conforming to the expectations anddesires of those they love and respect, and to whom they are close. This rationale issupported by the results of this study in that NC was positively correlated with AC, whichis in line with previous research (e.g., Meyer et al., 2002). Furthermore, it is not surprisingthat identity alignment is a predictor of both AC and NC as it has been noted that variablescan contribute to different bases of commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Meyer &Parfyonova, 2010) depending on how they are being perceived. In this instance, identityalignment can play a part in developing an emotional attachment to the family firm (iflater-gen members feel that the enterprise provides them with support and a sense of self)and/or a sense of obligation (if they feel that such support and position within the firmshould be reciprocated).

Continuance CommitmentWith regard to antecedents of CC, we found strong support for financial costs and

limited exposure to alternative career paths. These findings confirm the importance ofeconomic and job-related factors in the development of CC to the family business. It ispossible that not being involved in the family business has minimal impact on familial

15June, 2013

relationships, thereby reducing any social costs that may be incurred. While this findingmay seem counterintuitive to research on the affective endowments that make up socioe-motional wealth in family firms (Gomez-Mejia et al., 2011), we interpret it as a reminderof the heterogeneity of family enterprises as evidenced by available research highlightingthe diversity of goals and performances (e.g., McKenny, Short, Zachary, & Payne, 2012).

Bases of CommitmentNC was found to be positively correlated both to AC and to CC (r = .22; p < .01 and

r = .42; p < .01, respectively), and we found stronger evidence of an association betweenNC and CC. Although it is typical for NC to be positively related to both AC and CC, themagnitude of these correlations is usually reversed. Meyer et al.’s (2002) meta-analyticfindings suggest that the correlation between AC and NC tends to be much higher than thecorrelation between CC and NC (r = .63 vs. r = .18). Our finding suggests that the familybusiness environment may provide a unique context to examine NC. Family members aremore likely than the average employee to be driven by a greater confluence of factors tostay with their family firm. In addition to being part of the emotional bond that existsbetween an individual and the firm, a family member experiencing high levels of NC mayalso feel compelled to remain committed to the family firm because the side-bets, orinvestments, they have made—be they financial, social, psychological, or other—are high(Jaros, Jermier, Koehler, & Sincich, 1993). Thus, in some cases NC can be experienced asa negative feeling. Commitment scholars have indeed encouraged development of studiesto understand simultaneous occurrence of different forms of commitment or commit-ment profiles (Gellatly, Meyer, & Luchak, 2006; McNally & Irving, 2010; Meyer &Herscovitch, 2001). Our results provide an indication of how these forms may coexist infamily enterprises.

Intention to StayNC and AC have a strong positive relationship with intention to stay, indicating

that even when individuals experience obligation, their turnover intentions are weak. Thesignificant relation between these two commitment bases and intention to stay makessense in light of the former being attitudes toward a target (Solinger, van Olffen, & Roe,2008), in this case the family business, and the latter being an attitude toward a specificbehavior, that is, staying in or leaving the family business. Our study also indicates highlevels of different forms of commitment and intention to stay among later-gen membersworking in the family business (see means in Table 1). This is not surprising given theuniqueness of family firms in which attachment to the business is high (Cabrera-Suárez,De Sáá-Pérez, & García-Almeida, 2001; Neubaum, Dibrell, & Craig, 2012).

Full and Partial MediationAlthough the following interpretation requires some caution because it is based on

a theoretically underspecified model, we explored the mediation effects of commitmentbases in our model (Byrne, 2010). This analysis showed that the three commitment basesact as full mediators of the hypothesized relationships, further corroborating our results.Specifically, AC fully mediates identity alignment and career interest alignment in relationto intention to stay. NC fully mediates the impact of family expectations on intention tostay. CC fully mediates the relationships between its antecedents (financial costs, limited


exposure to alternate career paths, and perceived lack of marketable skills) and intentionto stay. However, interestingly, this analysis reveals that, although social costs does nothave a direct significant effect on CC, it has a negative direct effect on intention to stay.Apparently, the perceived social costs of later-gen members associated with nonpartici-pation in the family business has a negative direct impact on their intention to remain inthe family business.

LimitationsThe results reported here must be viewed in consideration of the study’s limitations.

First, we had one respondent from each company. Our choice was dictated by thepeculiarity of our study whereby a single family member often takes over the business.Second, the cross-sectional research methodology does not allow us to make causalinferences with respect to the theoretical framework. Third, the Cronbach’s alpha valuefor AC is at the lower end of acceptability. However, a Cronbach’s alpha of .60 has beenindicated as being adequate (e.g., Wijbenga, Postma, & Stratling, 2007), and levelsapproaching .60 have been reported in the literature (.59 in Parmerlee & Near, 1984; and.57 in Krueger, 1993). The lower than expected correlation between AC and NC may bethe result of low reliability of the AC measure. However, the significant relationshipsbetween AC and the hypothesized antecedents suggest that these relations may be evenmore robust than indicated in our findings. Fourth, we cannot discard the possibilityof self-selection bias regarding the firms involved in CAFE: for example, Chua et al.(1999) found that family firms belonging to CAFE were older and larger than non-CAFEmembers. Our study focused on the commitment of later-gen members working in thefamily firm, and we do not believe that this would be any different because the firm hasjoined an association. However, CAFE members may be more aware of the “familybusiness discourse” and of specific concepts related to family business management andgovernance. Similar considerations may apply to firms belonging to the Ticino Chamberof Commerce. Finally, when we regressed commitment bases on intention to stay, wefound a strong sample impact (b = -.56; p < .001), indicating that Swiss respondents hadlower intention to stay. There are two possible explanations for this. First, although werecognize that Canada also offers new work opportunities, the Swiss region of CantonTicino is in a particularly favorable geographical position as it is in a “strategic arealocated in the heart of Europe, with easy access to the major capitals of the continent”(Sadis, 2011, p. 10), offering alternative work opportunities for later-gen members.Second, Canadian (and U.S.) respondents have a higher tendency toward using extremeresponse categories in rating scales (Harzing, 2006). On the contrary, European countriestend to display lower extreme response style (Meisenberg & Williams, 2008). Indeed,66.9% of Canadian responses for intention to stay were rated as “5,” whereas Swissresponses were more evenly distributed among highest scores (31.1% of responses were“5” and 33.4% were “4”).

Further ResearchOne potential avenue for future research is to consider how the different bases of

commitment may have differential effects not only on turnover, but also on extra-rolebehaviors, such as citizenship behaviors. For example, AC has been shown to be beneficialwhile CC is less strongly related to positive organizational outcomes (Meyer et al., 2002).Future research could also examine attitudinal and behavioral commitment by examining

17June, 2013

the “darker side” of commitment, such as escalation of commitment leading individuals tobecome locked into costly courses of action after encountering increased problems orlosses (Staw, 1981). This may be particularly interesting in a family firm context in whichlater-gen members are particularly prone to family business commitment entrapment(Chirico, Sirmon, et al., 2011; Salvato, Chirico, & Sharma, 2010). In addition, research oncommitment has moved toward understanding the interactive effects of different bases ofcommitment (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). As noted previously, research has begun toexamine commitment profiles with different combinations of AC, NC, and CC (e.g.,Gellatly et al., 2006; McNally & Irving, 2010). Although it is speculative at this point,the context effect of NC may be more pronounced in family businesses where obligationsare compounded by both organizational and familial ties. Finally, we found that genderwas significantly related to NC, with women reporting a feeling of higher obligation. Thismight be interpreted as an extension of societal expectations for women to take care offamily on all dimensions and may warrant further research.

Concluding RemarksThis study is the first attempt to examine empirically the multidimensional nature

of commitment in the family business context. Family enterprises are an ideal setting inwhich to study organizational commitment because, although organizations can put effortinto supporting their employees in order to increase their commitment (Meyer et al.,2002), family members have a natural propensity for organizational commitment(Cabrera-Suárez et al., 2001; Neubaum et al., 2012). Although often cited as an importantvariable contributing to the effectiveness of family enterprises, we have shown that thebasis of later-gen member commitment places an important qualification on this claim.Advancing our understanding of the different reasons why family members choose toremain with their family business for the long term also contributes to the ongoing debateof individual- and firm-level outcome differences among family enterprises (Gedajlovic,Carney, Chrisman, & Kellermanns, 2012). Although we found empirical evidence forseveral of the antecedents included in Sharma and Irving’s (2005) framework, our findingsalso highlight the importance of identity alignment in creating feelings of obligation- (andnot just of desire-) based commitment. Furthermore, we found evidence that intentions tostay are stronger not only when individuals have desire-based commitment, but also whencommitment is based on a mindset of obligation.

These results have implications for practitioners. Reasons for later-gen members tomaintain a career in the family enterprise vary significantly. Family firm owners may seekto identify and foster potential successors who are driven by a strong desire to work for thefamily firm. In contrast, it may be advantageous to nurture later-gen members who appearto be mostly watching over their investments to help them develop feelings of desiretoward the firm. Pending further research on the matter, it may be wise for family firmowners to proceed cautiously before attempting to create a sense of obligation in familymembers that, despite some of the positive associations found here, may inadvertentlymake them feel trapped in the firm.


Appendix: Survey Items

Constructs Items

Affective commitment I feel as if my family business’s problems are my own.‡

I do not feel a sense of belonging to my family business.I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with my family business.I do not feel emotionally attached to my family business.My family business has great personal meaning for me.

Normative commitment I do not feel any obligation to pursue a career with my family business.Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave my family business now.My family business deserves my loyalty.I would feel guilty if I did not pursue a career with my family business now.I would pursue a career with my family business because I have a sense of obligation to my family.I owe a great deal to my family business.

Continuance commitment At this time, pursuing a career in my family business is a matter of necessity.Too much of my life would be disrupted if I decided I did not want to pursue a career with my family business now.It would be costly for me to leave my family business now.I feel that I have too few options to consider a career outside my family business.One of the few negative consequences of leaving my family business would be the scarcity of available resources.It would be very hard for me to leave my family business now, even if I wanted to.It would be very hard for me not to pursue a career with my family business now, even if I wanted to.It would be costly for me to pursue a career outside my family business now.If I had not already put so much of myself into my family business, I might consider working elsewhere.

Identity alignment I support the family business in discussions with friends, employees, and other family members.I find that my values are compatible with those of the family business.I am proud to tell others that I am a part of the family business.I really care about the fate of the family business.Deciding to be involved with the family business has a positive influence on my life.The family business is an important center of activity in the lives of my family members.†

Most of my friends and associates identify me with my family’s business.†

Our family has been associated with this business for a long time.†

When someone criticizes the family business, I take it as a personal insult.When I talk about the family business, I usually say “we” not “they.”When someone praises the family business, I take it as a personal compliment.

Career interest alignment Working in the family business allows me to contribute to its success through my personal expertise.†

Pursuing a career in our family business is all I have ever considered.†

I’m not sure I’d find as good a career outside the family business.†‡

I have always wanted to have a career in this business.†

I have long aspired to the type of career that is available in my family’s business.†

The family business offers me the chance to do what I’ve always wanted to do.†

Family expectations My family feels positively about my working in our family business.†

My family would be disappointed if I did not pursue a career in the family business.†

My family expects me to pursue a career in the family business.†

My family would want me to play a significant role in the family business.†

Irrespective of my goals, my family expects me to play a leadership role in the family business.†

Family orientation The most important thing that happens in life involves the family.People should get involved in the family.The family should be a large part of one’s life.The family should be considered central to life.An individual’s life goals should be mainly family oriented.Life is worth living when people get totally absorbed in family life.

Financial costs I would be less wealthy working somewhere other than in our family business.†

Working for the family business provides me with greater financial security than I could find working elsewhere.†‡

Selling the business to an outsider would not get us what this business is really worth.†

Pursuing a career in the family business would provide financial security.†‡

The family has invested too much money and work in our business to hand it over to an outsider.†

Social costs My place in the community is defined by my family’s business.†

Keeping the business in the family will ensure that the many community/business relationships that have developedover the years will not be lost.†

The family business has built a great reputation in the community.†

We have a certain status in the community, which must be upheld through the family business.†

Limited exposure toalternate career paths

Most of my work experience has been with our family business.†

If I did not pursue a career in the family business, I do not know what else I would do.†

I know little about alternative career paths outside the family business.†

I have had limited opportunities to explore career paths outside the family business.†

Perceived lack ofmarketable skills

I don’t believe my current skill set would allow me to be successful outside the family business.†

I feel that I have skills that are marketable outside the family business.†

If I had some other skills, maybe I could be successful outside the family business.†

My current skill set would allow me to succeed in many work settings outside the family business.†

Intention to stay If I have my own way, I will be working for the family business one year from now.If I have my own way, I will be working for the family business 5 years from now.I am not planning to search for a new job in another organization during the next 12 months.I rarely think of quitting my job in the family business.

† Denotes new scale created and pretested for this study.‡ Item dropped due to low loading (Hulland, 1999, p. 198).

19June, 2013

REFERENCES

Albert, S. & Whetten, D.A. (1985). Organizational identity. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Researchin organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 263–295). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Aldrich, H.E. & Cliff, J.E. (2003). The pervasive effects of family on entrepreneurship: Toward a familyembeddedness perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(5), 573–596.

Aldrich, H.E. & Langton, N. (1997). Human resource management and organizational life cycles. In P.D.Reynolds, W. Bygrave, N.M. Carter, P. Davidsson, W.B. Gartner, C.M. Mason, et al. (Eds.), Frontiers ofentrepreneurship research (pp. 349–357). Babson Park, MA: Babson College, Center for EntrepreneurialStudies.

Allen, N.J. & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normativecommitment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18.

Arregle, J.L., Hitt, M., Sirmon, D., & Very, P. (2007). The development of organizational social capital:Attributes of family firms. Journal of Management Studies, 44(1), 73–95.

Asakawa, K. (2001). Family socialization practices and their effects on the internalization of educationalvalues for Asian and White American adolescents. Applied Developmental Science, 5(3), 184–194.

Ashforth, B.E. & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of ManagementReview, 14(1), 20–39.

Astrachan, J.H., Klein, S.B., & Smyrnios, K.X. (2002). The F-PEC scale of family influence: A proposal forsolving the family business definition problem. Family Business Review, 15(1), 45–58.

Barling, J. (1990). Employment, stress and family functioning. New York: Wiley.

Barling, J., Kelloway, E.K., & Bremerman, E.H. (1991). Preemployment predictors of union attitudes: Therole of family socialization and work beliefs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 725–731.

Burkart, M., Panunzi, F., & Shleifer, A. (2003). Family firms. Journal of Finance, 58(5), 2167–2201.

Byrne, B. (2010). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications, and programming(2nd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

Cabrera-Suárez, K., De Sáá-Pérez, P.D., & García-Almeida, D. (2001). The succession process from aresource- and knowledge-based view of the family firm. Family Business Review, 14(1), 37–47.

Carney, M. (2005). Corporate governance and competitive advantages in family-controlled firms. Entrepre-neurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 249–265.

Chen, H.-L. & Hsu, W.-T. (2009). Family ownership, board independence, and R&D investment. FamilyBusiness Review, 22(4), 347–362.

Chirico, F., Ireland, D., & Sirmon, D. (2011). Franchising and the family firm: Creating unique sources ofadvantage through “familiness.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(3), 483–501.

Chirico, F., Sirmon, D., Sciascia, S., & Mazzola, P. (2011). Resource orchestration in family firms: Investi-gating how entrepreneurial orientation, generational involvement, and participative strategy affect perfor-mance. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 5(4), 307–326.

Chrisman, J.J., Chua, J.H., & Sharma, P. (1998). Important attributes of successors in family business: Anexploratory study. Family Business Review, 11(1), 19–34.

Chua, J.H., Chrisman, J.J., & Sharma, P. (1999). Defining the family business by behavior. EntrepreneurshipTheory and Practice, 23(4), 19–39.


Colarelli, S.M. (1984). Methods of communication and mediating processes in realistic job previews. Journalof Applied Psychology, 69(4), 633–642.

Colbert, B.A. (2004). The complex resource-based view: Implications for theory and practice in strategichuman resource management. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 341–358.

Colquitt, A.A. & Zapata-Phelan, C.P. (2007). Trends in theory building and theory testing: A five-decade studyof the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1281–1303.

Dawson, A. (2012). Human capital in family businesses: Focusing on the individual level. Journal of FamilyBusiness Strategy, 3(1), 3–11.

Donnelley, R.G. (1988). The family business. Family Business Review, 1(4), 427–445.

Dyer, G., Jr. & Whetten, D.A. (2006). Family firms and social responsibility: Preliminary evidence from theS&P 500. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 785–802.

Eddleston, K.A., Kellermanns, F.W., & Sarathy, R. (2008). Resource configuration in family firms: Linkingresources, strategic planning and technological opportunities to performance. Journal of Management Studies,45(1), 26–50.

Finegold, D., Mohrman, S., & Spreitzer, G.M. (2002). Age effects on the predictors of technical workers’commitment and willingness to turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(5), 655–674.

Gedajlovic, E., Carney, M., Chrisman, J.J., & Kellermanns, F.W. (2012). The adolescence of family firmresearch: Taking stock and planning for the future. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1010–1037.

Gellatly, I.R., Meyer, J.P., & Luchak, A.A. (2006). Combined effects of three commitment components onfocal and discretionary behaviors: A test of Meyer and Herscovitch’s propositions. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 69(2), 331–345.

Gomez-Mejia, L.R., Cruz, C., Berrone, P., & De Castro, J. (2011). The bind that ties: Socioemotional wealthpreservation in family firms. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 653–707.

Gupta, V. & Hanges, P.H. (2004). Regional and climate clustering of societal cultures. In R. House (Ed.),Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies (pp. 178–217). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Habbershon, T.G. & Astrachan, J.H. (1997). Perceptions are reality: How family meetings lead to collectiveaction. Family Business Review, 10(1), 37–52.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., & Anderson, R.E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hambrick, D.C. (2007). The field of management’s devotion to theory: Too much of a good thing? Academyof Management Journal, 50(6), 1346–1352.

Hamilton, L.C. (2006). Statistics with STATA. Belmont, CA: Cengage.

Harris, D., Martinez, J.I., & Ward, J.L. (1994). Is strategy different for the family-owned business? FamilyBusiness Review, 7(2), 159–174.

Harzing, A. (2006). Response styles in cross-national survey research: A 26-country study. InternationalJournal of Cross Cultural Management, 6(2), 243–266.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills,CA: Sage.

21June, 2013

Holt, D.T., Rutherford, M.W., & Kuratko, D.F. (2010). Advancing the field of family business research:Further testing the measurement properties of the F-PEC. Family Business Review, 23(1), 76–88.

Hu, L.T. & Bentler, P.M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling:Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of fourrecent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 195–204.

Issacharoff, S. (1998). Can there be a behavioral law and economics? Vanderbilt Law Review, 51(6),1729–1745.

James, A.E., Jennings, J.E., & Breitkreuz, R.S. (2012). Worlds apart? Re-bridging the distance between familyscience and family business research. Family Business Review, 25(1), 87–108.

Jansen, J.J.P., van den Bosch, F.A.J., & Volberda, H.W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptivecapacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 999–1015.

Jaros, S.T., Jermier, J.M., Koehler, J.W., & Sincich, T. (1993). Effects of continuance, affective, and moralcommitment on the withdrawal process: An evaluation of eight structural equation models. Academy ofManagement Journal, 36(5), 951–995.

Kacmar, K.M. & Whitfield, J.M. (2000). An additional rating method for journal articles in the field ofmanagement. Organizational Research Methods, 3(4), 392–406.

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L., & Thaler, R.H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and theCoase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325–1348.

Klein, S.B., Astrachan, J.H., & Smyrnios, K.X. (2005). The F-PEC scale of family influence: Construction,validation, and further implication for theory. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 321–339.

Krueger, N. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibilityand desirability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 18(1), 3–21.

Lambrecht, J. (2005). Multigenerational transition in family businesses: A new explanatory model. FamilyBusiness Review, 18(4), 267–282.

Lane, P.J. & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. StrategicManagement Journal, 19(5), 461–477.

Le Breton-Miller, I. & Miller, D. (2006). Why do some family businesses out-compete? Governance,longterm orientations, and sustainable capability. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(6), 731–746.

Lumpkin, G.T., Martin, W., & Vaughn, M. (2008). Family orientation: Individual-level influences on familyfirm outcomes. Family Business Review, 21(2), 127–138.

Mael, F.A. & Ashforth, B.E. (1995). Loyal from day one: Bio-data, organizational identification, and turnoveramong newcomers. Personnel Psychology, 48(2), 309–333.

Marsh, H.W., Hau, K.T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testingapproaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler (1999).Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341.

Mathieu, J.E. & Zajac, D.M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates and conse-quences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 171–194.

McGee, G.W. & Ford, R.C. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commitment:Re-examination of the affective and continuance commitment scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4),638–642.


McKenny, A.F., Short, J.C., Zachary, M.A., & Payne, G.T. (2012). Assessing espoused goals in private familyfirms using content analysis. Family Business Review, 25(3), 298–317.

McNally, J.J. & Irving, P.G. (2010). The relationship between university student commitment profiles andbehavior: Exploring the nature of context effects. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 17(2),201–215.

Meisenberg, G. & Williams, A. (2008). Are acquiescent and extreme response styles related to low intelli-gence and education? Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1539–1550.

Meyer, J.P. & Allen, N.J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment.Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89.

Meyer, J.P. & Allen, N.J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Gellatly, I.R. (1990). Affective and continuance commitment to the organization:Evaluation of measures and analysis of concurrent and time-lagged relations. Journal of Applied Psychology,75(6), 710–720.

Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., & Smith, C.A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension andtest of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538–551.

Meyer, J.P. & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Toward a general model of commitment. Human Resource ManagementReview, 11(3), 299–326.

Meyer, J.P. & Parfyonova, N.M. (2010). Normative commitment in the workplace: A theoretical analysis andre-conceptualization. Human Resource Management Review, 20(4), 283–294.

Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normativecommitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52.

Miller, D. & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2005). Managing for the long run: Lessons in competitive advantage fromgreat family businesses. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Miller, D. & Le Breton-Miller, I. (2006). Family governance and firm performance: Agency, stewardship, andcapabilities. Family Business Review, 19(1), 73–87.

Misra, S., Ghosh, R., & Kanungo, R.N. (1990). Measurement of family involvement: A cross national studyof managers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21(2), 232–248.

Morrow, P.C. (1983). Concept redundancy in organizational research: The case of work commitment.Academy of Management Review, 8(3), 486–500.

Neubaum, D.O., Dibrell, C., & Craig, J.B. (2012). Balancing natural environmental concerns of internal andexternal stakeholders in family and non-family businesses. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 3(1), 28–37.

O’Reilly, C.A. & Caldwell, D.E. (1981). The commitment and job tenure of new employees: Some evidenceof post decisional justification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 597–616.

Parmerlee, M.A. & Near, J.P. (1984). The relationships among beliefs, organizational position, and whistle-blowing status: A discriminant analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 27(4), 687–705.

Pearson, A.W. & Lumpkin, G.T. (2011). Measurement in family business research: How do we measure up?Family Business Review, 24(4), 287–291.

Perricone, P.J., Earle, J.R., & Taplin, I.M. (2001). Patterns of succession and continuity in family-ownedbusinesses: Study of an ethnic community. Family Business Review, 14(2), 105–121.

23June, 2013

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Jeong-Yeon, L., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases inbehavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 88(5), 879–903.

Podsakoff, P.M. & Organ, D.W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects.Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.

Porter, L.W., Crampon, W.J., & Smith, F.J. (1976). Organizational commitment and managerial turnover:A longitudinal study. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 15, 87–98.

Reichers, A.E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy ofManagement Review, 10(3), 465–476.

Riketta, M. & Van Dick, R. (2009). Commitment’s place in the literature. In H.J. Klein, T.E. Becker, & J.P.Meyer (Eds.), Commitment in organizations: Accumulated wisdom and new directions (pp. 69–95). NewYork:Routledge.

Sadis, L. (2011). Ticino for finance. Available at http://www.ticinoforfinance.ch, accessed 4 April 2012.

Salvato, C., Chirico, F., & Sharma, P. (2010). A farewell to the business: Championing entrepreneurial exit infamily firm. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(3–4), 321–348.

Salvato, C., Minichilli, A., & Piccarreta, R. (2012). Faster route to the CEO suite: Nepotism or managerialproficiency? Family Business Review, 25(2), 206–224.

Scandura, T.A. & Lankau, M.J. (1997). Relationships of gender, family responsibility and flexible work hoursto organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(4), 377–391.

Schulze, W.S., Lubatkin, M.H., Dino, R.N., & Buchholtz, A.Z. (2001). Agency relationships in family firms:Theory and evidence. Organization Science, 12(2), 99–116.

Sharma, P., Chrisman, J.J., & Gersick, K.E. (2012). 25 years of Family Business Review: Reflections on thepast and perspectives for the future. Family Business Review, 25(1), 5–15.

Sharma, P. & Irving, P.G. (2005). Four bases of family business successor commitment: Antecedents andconsequences. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1), 13–33.

Sharma, P. & Manikutty, S. (2005). Strategic divestments in family firms: Role of family structure andcommunity culture. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(3), 293–312.

Sharma, P. & Rao, S.A. (2000). Successor attributes in Indian and Canadian family firms: A comparativestudy. Family Business Review, 13(4), 313–330.

Sirmon, D.G. & Hitt, M.A. (2003). Managing resources: Linking unique resources, management and wealthcreation in family firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), 339–358.

Solinger, O.N., van Olffen, W., & Roe, R.A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model of organizationalcommitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 70–83.

Sommer, S.M., Bae, S., & Luthans, F. (1996). Organizational commitment across cultures: The impact ofantecedents on Korean employees. Human Relations, 49(7), 977–993.

Staw, B.M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review,6(4), 577–587.

Stewart, A. (2003). Help one another, use one another: Toward an anthropology of family business.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(4), 383–396.


Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1985). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W.G.Austin (Eds.), Psychology and intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Vallejo, M.C. & Langa, D. (2010). Effects of family socialization in the organizational commitment of thefamily firms from the moral economy perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(1), 49–62.

Wagner, W.G., Pfeffer, J., & O’Reilly, III, C.A. (1984). Organizational demography and turnover in top-management group. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(1), 74–92.

Wiener, Y. & Vardi, Y. (1980). Relationships between job, organization, and career commitments and workoutcomes: An integrative approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26(1), 81–96.

Wijbenga, F.H., Postma, T.J.B.M., & Stratling, R. (2007). The influence of the venture capitalist’s governanceactivities on the entrepreneurial firm’s control systems and performance. Entrepreneurship Theory andPractice, 31(2), 257–277.

Zahra, S.A., Hayton, J.C., Neubaum, D.O., Dibrell, C., & Craig, J. (2008). Culture of family commitmentand strategic flexibility: The moderating effect of stewardship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(6),1035–1054.

Zellweger, T.M., Eddleston, K.A., & Kellermanns, F.W. (2010). Exploring the concept of familiness: Intro-ducing family firm identity. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 1(1), 54–63.

Alexandra Dawson is an assistant professor at the John Molson School of Business, Concordia University,1455 De Maisonneuve Boulevard West, Montreal, QC, Canada H3G 1M8.

Pramodita Sharma is a professor at the School of Business Administration, University of Vermont, 55Colchester Avenue, Burlington, VT 05405, USA, and Global Director of the STEP project at Babson College..

P. Gregory Irving is a professor at the School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, 75University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 3C5.

Joel Marcus is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies, York University,4700 Keele Street, Toronto, ON, Canada M3J 1P3.

Francesco Chirico is an associate professor at the Center for Family Enterprise and Ownership (CeFEO),Jönköping International Business School, PO Box 1026, SE-551 11 Jönköping, Sweden.

We gratefully acknowledge the guidance and insightful suggestions provided by the editor, Donald Neubaum,and two anonymous reviewers. We appreciate the funding support received from the Social Sciences andHumanities Council of Canada (SSHRC), the Swiss National Science Foundation, and Handelsbanken and theCenter for Family Enterprise and Ownership (CEFEO) in Sweden.

25June, 2013

Dawson, Sharma, Irving, Marcus and Chirico, ETP forthcoming

Documents

Transcript of Dawson, Sharma, Irving, Marcus and Chirico, ETP forthcoming